Actually while I'm on a role. How about other elements of the force continum? How much time on soft skills and using other levels of force?
you want me to expand? sure... i think it's the pinnacle of irresponsibility to say those things to students that you've posted. are you a law enforcement officer? are you an attorney familiar with criminal case law in your state or country? what exact "right to kill" are you invoking? do you also teach the psychological implications of deadly violence, or any violence? how exactly do you drill "deadly" techniques to your students? and, do you even know that your "deadly" techniques will work under pressure? have you, tom bayley, killed a person in "self defense" or otherwise? if yes, how many? i think it's unreal that you would ever say that to a student. frankly, if i heard you say that and i was a student, i would leave your school immediately and never come back.
I think you misunderstand Tom. There is a difference between saying a technique should only be used in life and death attack situations (as opposed to uncle Joe getting too drunk at a family picnic) and saying this is the automatic deadly attack. This would be especially true if weapon attacks are taught. So, learning to use a dagger because it could potentially kill someone is not the same as saying every attack will automatically kill on the first strike. I would grab a knife or a stick if someone was breaking into my house. I wouldn't even grab one if at that party with said drunk uncle. I won't even aim for a spinal cord hit on my drunk uncle, but I wouldn't avoid such a strike if attacked by a stranger. It's about the potential for something like spinal cord damage, not assuming it will do so. I am going to fight if someone tried certain attacks like rape. This would have been true before ANY training as a MAist. I don't care about the psychological this or the legal that.
You've picked up a knife. You've now escalated to deadly force, whether you intend to or not. Even with drunk uncle it's not a matter of aiming to wound, you've got a weapon are you justified in bringing it to bear? How are you justifying it ?
Well you should do because surviving the assault and ending up behind bars is no good to you or your loved ones. It also only gives you one mindset for the whole of your training, you've only got a hammer so everything looks like a nail.
i train with blades occasionally. i get that knives are deadly. i train with firearms, i get those tools kill also. hell, i get that even empty-hand techniques i learn are potentially deadly. i own a gun. but no "martial arts" instructor should ever say anything to a student regarding the use of deadly force, justified or not. that's for attorneys, that's for the law to state. it upsets me that this is even considered normal for a "martial arts instructor" to tell his students ever that the use of deadly force is justified. in your rape example, i'm pretty sure that you, rape victim, don't get to kill someone if they've raped you, or attempted to rape you.
Really? I'd be surprised if she'd be expected to just let them get on with it. Sorry if that sounds a little indelicate.
no, i'm not saying "do nothing". but you're going to put your future in the hands of a court? or jury? how about do what you need to escape and get out of there? in order to prove the use of lethal force, the burden could be on you, the one that's used lethal force. there was a woman in florida that just got sent to prison because she fired a warning shot in her own home. sure, george zimmerman got away with it, but turn this situation around, what if trayvon and george's roles flipped? what do you think the jury would've found then? i have a cynical answer, which i'm sure you can guess. look all i'm saying it's a complicated issue, and unless you're fully aware of applicable laws, it's irresponsible to tell your "students" that lethal force is justified.
Just had a look. That woman left the scene to get her weapon for a start and it sounds like it was possibly not a deadly force altercation until she did that.
i believe dean, and i'm sorry if i forgot the details, hadn't the man abused her before? and didn't she have a restraining order out on him? she claimed "stand your ground" and thought that the warning shot would scare him away. now, she's in prison and her kids are in what, care of the state? very complicated issue, using deadly force, or even the threat of deadly force. maybe it would have been better for her to just kill the guy like you said? i'm not an attorney. but i have a black belt in hapkido!
Yeah she claimed stand your ground but it didn't apply due to what she did. I'm no lawyer either, I'm not even in the US.
She left the house(and the danger), got the gun from her vehicle, went back inside(and into the danger) and then fired the shot.
This was complicated! She went to his place when he wasn't supposed to be in and she was sort of sneaking about. She had to go out to get her gun to come back to threaten her ex , who she had been cheating on, and fired the shot when he was standing in the room with 2 young boys. Florida law has mandatory sentencing that escalates with the danger level of use... 1 gun used, 2 gun fired, 3 someone shot... All have minimum sentences.. Oh this lady was also later charged for domestic abuse and there is a restraining order preventing her from approaching her husband (at least before she went to jail)... Hard to feel sympathy when the facts come out... LFD
Just to be clear, her incidence of domestic abuse occurred later than the incident where the gun was fired. LFD
i think we're all in agreement, no? lethal force or the threat of lethal force raises all kinds of potential legal issues.
I think I prefer the martial arts for self defence category since it seems more spiritual, whereas the warrior side is more for people prepared or training to kill individuals. The funny thing is, this warrior side can be attractive to sociopathic individuals, but I will never include law enforcement individuals in this category, as they have the right to justifiable force.
